3 ms·

I've been thinking about how modern social networks have turned us ignorant of working together in real life. A lot of people in practice do not talk out decis

I've been thinking about how modern social networks have turned us ignorant of working together in real life. A lot of people in practice do not talk out decisions anymore. They instead go to the internet, look up other people's arguments, and use that as the basis of their decision-making. In effect, the internet has replaced Robert's Rules of Order as a form of cultural organization. ---------- * Instead of "Everyone has 2 turns to talk per meeting", we have upvotes, like and subscribe for more visibility. * Instead of deciding upon whether an issue is dead and moving on (60%+ vote to kill debate), we have trolls to shout down an argument and get people to leave. * Instead of a chairman trying to balance everyone's need for discussion, we have algorithms and influencers fighting to the top of attention hierarchies. ----------- We don't need Robert's Rules because we can organize a perpetual online discussion on any subject we want. Alas, we've lost something... Parliamentary Theory taught that minorities deserve a discussion (even if they inevitably lose the vote). Forcing everyone to hear the minority's discussion points before voting is fundamental to Robert's Rules. Now Roberts Rules are unwieldy, they're slow. Forcing everyone to sit around and listen to everyone else talk one-at-a-time just doesn't scale to Internet-sizes. But we also can't leave our debates and discussions to online technologies. Yes, "some meetings should be emails". But meetings and conferences (as per Roberts Rules) existed for over a hundred years for a reason. Minority voices matter. The modern internet (Reddit, Youtube, TikTok, etc. etc.) doesn't give a voice to the minority, so everyone constantly is feeling silenced. -------------- Social Networks _have_ made things more convenient. And I think Hacker News proves the importance of moderators to lead discussion (Hacker News is very barebones in terms of social networking features, and instead relies upon the heroic efforts of moderators to keep us on subject). Good discussions need leaders. Roberts Rules were mostly a set of rules for how leaders should lead discussions. A modern version of Roberts Rules would likely be more about how to be a moderator and how to ensure everyone gets a fair shot at the online discussion. But I'm also not convinced that any social network has truly figured out the proper political theories with regards to how discussions to evolve in the online space. Roberts Rules had centuries of inspiration and political theory study, we've only had social media for a few short decades at best.

creer 3y ago
Good point on minority being heard. (Really though: "Reddit" doesn't leave minorities heard?) But also we don't use solid rules because we never need to come to a conclusion. Or rather any sub-group online feels free to claim its own conclusion; feels free to ignore most of the conversation; is entitled to run under a BDFL (benevolent dictator for life); etc. And there's no doubt the BDFL concept helps cut down on rules of order...
- dragontamer 3y ago
  > Really though: "Reddit" doesn't leave minorities heard? Minorities building up their own safe zones and bubbles is... okay-ish? There's benefits, but there's downsides. Its really not the same. Its better than nothing, but its not the same as actually coming together and discussing things in a neutral space where everyone's forced to sit and listen to each other. Roberts Rules is that everyone (and anyone) is allowed to have 2-moments per issue to speak their mind. Once as an opening statement, and a 2nd time to retort what someone else said. (Exception: 60%+ vote to kill the debate before everyone has had a time to talk). The chairman is supposed to favor alternating discussion points as well (ie: try to find someone who is "for" an issue, then follow it up with someone who is "against" the issue), though obviously a biased chair can seed the debate in one direction. (No one is immune from a biased leader, but assuming a decent leader / chair for the meeting, good things happen). Note that Roberts Rules is "immune" to filibuster because of the 10-minute time limit per person (though the timeout limit needs to be tweaked depending on your group's dynamics). The US Senate has no time limits, therefore allowing a filibuster (an endless debate where you speak forever, never allowing the vote to come across). But US House retains the time limit (and has a complicated set of rules where different members ask / reserve their timeslots based on the amount of time the two parties have been allocated). > feels free to ignore most of the conversation You can ignore the minority voice at your own peril. When there are many other people at the meeting, ignoring other people's debate points is surely the way to lose the debate. Ignoring the minority and letting them have the floor perpetually to discuss their points turns the minority into the majority as they convince others that their viewpoints are superior. Especially in a meeting of mostly neutral / apolitical and reasonable people who are listening to others before they vote.

creer 3y ago

Good point on minority being heard. (Really though: "Reddit" doesn't leave minorities heard?) But also we don't use solid rules because we never need to come to a conclusion. Or rather any sub-group online feels free to claim its own conclusion; feels free to ignore most of the conversation; is entitled to run under a BDFL (benevolent dictator for life); etc. And there's no doubt the BDFL concept helps cut down on rules of order...

dragontamer 3y ago
> Really though: "Reddit" doesn't leave minorities heard? Minorities building up their own safe zones and bubbles is... okay-ish? There's benefits, but there's downsides. Its really not the same. Its better than nothing, but its not the same as actually coming together and discussing things in a neutral space where everyone's forced to sit and listen to each other. Roberts Rules is that everyone (and anyone) is allowed to have 2-moments per issue to speak their mind. Once as an opening statement, and a 2nd time to retort what someone else said. (Exception: 60%+ vote to kill the debate before everyone has had a time to talk). The chairman is supposed to favor alternating discussion points as well (ie: try to find someone who is "for" an issue, then follow it up with someone who is "against" the issue), though obviously a biased chair can seed the debate in one direction. (No one is immune from a biased leader, but assuming a decent leader / chair for the meeting, good things happen). Note that Roberts Rules is "immune" to filibuster because of the 10-minute time limit per person (though the timeout limit needs to be tweaked depending on your group's dynamics). The US Senate has no time limits, therefore allowing a filibuster (an endless debate where you speak forever, never allowing the vote to come across). But US House retains the time limit (and has a complicated set of rules where different members ask / reserve their timeslots based on the amount of time the two parties have been allocated). > feels free to ignore most of the conversation You can ignore the minority voice at your own peril. When there are many other people at the meeting, ignoring other people's debate points is surely the way to lose the debate. Ignoring the minority and letting them have the floor perpetually to discuss their points turns the minority into the majority as they convince others that their viewpoints are superior. Especially in a meeting of mostly neutral / apolitical and reasonable people who are listening to others before they vote.